I'm no Calvinist but...

[Winman]

Do you not agree with Paul that whom God predestines, he calls?
Do you not agree with Paul that whom God calls, he justifies?
Do you not agree with Paul that believers are "the called" according to His purpose?

Of course I agree with that. I do not believe any saved person was not called. But that does not mean that the unsaved were not also called. Why do you insist everyone who is called gets saved when the scriptures clearly show numerous times that God calls people who refuse to come?

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

OK, maybe an analogy will help. I go out in my yard and call my four children who are out playing to come home for supper. All four hear me, but only two obey and come.

Were the two who obeyed called? Yes.

Were the two who disobeyed and refused to come called? Yes.

Why can't you understand this?

And I elect to give my two children who obeyed supper, but my two disobedient children miss supper when they finally decide to come home. That was a rule I made up before they were ever born.

 

[Tom Butler]

Winman, my brother, I have already agreed with you that there are those who reject the call to repentance and faith. And the examples you cited are just fine. You keep insisting that some are called and refuse to come, and I keep agreeing with you.

We keep on agreeing with each other that God calls those whom he predestines, and justifies everyone whom he calls.

So, if that's the case--that all whom God calls, he justifies--then we must find some explanation those who refuse God's call to salvation. In other words, can the scripture which says God justifies all those he calls, also permit us to say that God DOESN'T justify all those he calls?

You and I will agree that we must find some explanation that will resolve those two apparently conflicting statements.

My view of the General Call/Particular Call resolves things quite nicely, I think.

Time to run some errands, back in a while.

 

[Winman]

Winman, my brother, I have already agreed with you that there are those who reject the call to repentance and faith. And the examples you cited are just fine. You keep insisting that some are called and refuse to come, and I keep agreeing with you.

But that is not what you are saying. You speak of an "effectual call". You believe God sends out an effectual call to some sinners which acts upon them irresistably, thus the doctrine of Irresistable Grace.

You believe that God sends out a "general" or "ineffectual call" (there are many names for this call), that is not intended to regenerate those whom God has chosen to pass by.

So, the fault is not with the sinner, it MUST lie with God if your doctrine is true. You believe unregenerate man has no ability whatsoever to respond to the gospel. It is only if God calls certain men with this "effectual call" that they are enabled to respond to the gospel.

So, what you believe and what I believe are very different.

 

[Winman]

And saying that the unregenerate man is refusing God's call is not correct. It is not that he is refusing, he has no ability.

If you asked me to fly, I would tell you I am not able. I am willing, I will flap my arms as fast as I can. I would love to be able to fly. But it is physically impossible for me to fly without the aid of some type of aircraft.

For God to demand from men what he knows is impossible from them without his assistance, and then condemn that man for what God knows is impossible without providing them that necessary assistance would be absolutely unjust.

 

[Tom Butler]

And saying that the unregenerate man is refusing God's call is not correct. It is not that he is refusing, he has no ability.

If you asked me to fly, I would tell you I am not able. I am willing, I will flap my arms as fast as I can. I would love to be able to fly. But it is physically impossible for me to fly without the aid of some type of aircraft.

For God to demand from men what he knows is impossible from them without his assistance, and then condemn that man for what God knows is impossible without providing them that necessary assistance would be absolutely unjust.

Let's look at the flying analogy. Have you ever known someone who said, "I have lived a life of sin and sinfulness. I am so evil that God can't save someone like me. I want to be saved but I can't. I want to repent of my sin, but I can't. I want to put my trust in Christ for my salvation, but I can't. I want to confess Jesus as my Lord but I can't. I want to believe that he rose from the dead but I can't. I wish I could but God won't let me. It's all God's fault that I want to but can't. I guess I'm just not one of the elect."

Or, have you ever heard of anyone who expressed such desires, only to be told, "Sorry, you're such a scumbag, God would never save somebody like you, even if you want to. Don't bother repenting, don't bother confessing, don't bother believing. It won't do any good."

Silly? Sure. Nobody talks like that. And nobody I know blames God because he wants to fly but God won't give him the ability. Well, maybe there's somebody out there like that, so I better not say nobody.

While we're discussing man's ability or inability, maybe we can deal with some questions:
1. What is the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation? Can one be saved absent the work of the Spirit?
2. If the work of the Holy Spirit involves convicting of sin, can one be saved without ever coming under conviction?
3. What is the role of the gospel in salvation? Can one be saved without ever hearing the gospel?
4. Ezekiel quoted God as saying "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees...." God was describing a unilateral act which also included giving a new heart, removing a heart of stone. Can one positively respond to God's call without this work of God?

We can discuss free will, ability and inability all day long. But it is clear to me that no one can come to salvation independently of the work of the Godhead--and it is clear that no one will want to.

 

[Tom Butler]

Winman, my last post was getting a little long, so I'll add a comment here.

We agreed that whom God calls, he always justifies--without exception.
We also agreed that some do not answer the call of the gospel to repentance and faith.

I offered an explanation for the apparent contradiction, which we agree is not a contradiction. I suggested that there are two kinds of calls. You are free to disagree, but I still await your explanation.

How can God guarantee that all those he calls will be justified? I submit that God has the power to arrange the circumstances and the means to bring his chosen to certain repentance, faith, and thus salvation.

I gave my answer, and look forward to yours.

 

[Winman]

Let's look at the flying analogy. Have you ever known someone who said, "I have lived a life of sin and sinfulness. I am so evil that God can't save someone like me. I want to be saved but I can't. I want to repent of my sin, but I can't. I want to put my trust in Christ for my salvation, but I can't. I want to confess Jesus as my Lord but I can't. I want to believe that he rose from the dead but I can't. I wish I could but God won't let me. It's all God's fault that I want to but can't. I guess I'm just not one of the elect."

Well, believe it or not, there have been many people who believe just that. They have been taught that they are so depraved that they indeed believe they cannot repent. Even if they desire to repent (which contradicts Total Depravity), they have been taught that any good thing they try to do in the flesh is sin and motivated by sinful motives. I don't believe they go so far as to blame God, they simply believe what they have been taught, that they are absolutely unable to repent and believe.

Many preachers have reported cases like this where people believed they were unable to repent and believe.

Or, have you ever heard of anyone who expressed such desires, only to be told, "Sorry, you're such a scumbag, God would never save somebody like you, even if you want to. Don't bother repenting, don't bother confessing, don't bother believing. It won't do any good."

The Catholics tell their people this all the time.

While we're discussing man's ability or inability, maybe we can deal with some questions:
1. What is the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation? Can one be saved absent the work of the Spirit?
2. If the work of the Holy Spirit involves convicting of sin, can one be saved without ever coming under conviction?
3. What is the role of the gospel in salvation? Can one be saved without ever hearing the gospel?
4. Ezekiel quoted God as saying "And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees...." God was describing a unilateral act which also included giving a new heart, removing a heart of stone. Can one positively respond to God's call without this work of God?

#1 The Holy Spirit convicts, the Holy Spirit teaches. Upon believing, the Holy Spirit regenerates. A person cannot be saved absent the work of the Spirit.

But convicting a man and teaching a man is not regeneration. Perhaps you have a different defintion of regeneration, but I define regeneration as being made spiritually alive, being born again. I believe the unregenerate man can be convicted and taught by the Spirit, but this is not regeneration.

#2 No

#3 The gospel teaches you what you must believe. You must know and confess you are sinner incapable of saving yourself. You must know and believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who died on the cross to pay for your personal sins and that he rose again. You must believe, which means to depend or trust, upon Jesus only to save you. How can you trust in something you know nothing about? A person cannot be saved without the gospel.

But Calvinism teaches that a man is regenerated, made spiritually alive without repenting and without believing the gospel. Calvinism teaches a man must be regenerated, born again, before he is enabled to be willing to listen to the gospel, repent and believe it. It is the exact opposite of what scripture teaches.

I believe the unregenerate man can be convicted and taught, he can understand the gospel. And if the unregenerate man repents and believes the gospel, it is then that the Holy Spirit enters the man and regenerates him. This is shown in Ephesians 1:13

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

There it is, plain as day in scripture, you #1 hear the gospel, #2 trust the gospel, and #3 receive and are sealed by the Spirit.

Here is another verse that shows you must first hear and believe God's word to receive the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

This verse is very simple and easy to understand, Paul asks theses believers if they received the Holy Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing and believing God's word?

You believe a man receives the Spirit so that he can be enabled to hear and believe the gospel. You will not find one verse in all of scripture to support this, I can show you many other verses besides what I have already shown that shows the unregenerate man can hear and believe the gospel, and afterwards receives the Spirit.

#4 This is absolute assumption on your part that it is unilateral. God does not force or impose himself on anyone. He will give his Spirit to those willing to receive it. This is shown in John.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

It is those that willingly receive Jesus and believe on his name that God gives the power (Holy Spirit) to "become" the sons of God.

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

First of all, this verse proves the Calvinistic concept of Total Depravity error, because Jesus says unregenerate man can do good works. But notice he says the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who "ask him". Now how can you get around that, this proves the unregenerate man has the ability to ask for the Holy Spirit.

Jesus also told the Samaritan woman if she would ask, he would give her living water (the Holy Spirit).

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Does Jesus say this woman had to be regenerated? No, he says she needed to know the gift of God and who she was speaking to. In other words, if she knew the gospel, and knew she was speaking to Jesus the Son of God, then she would ask and he would give her the living water, the Holy Spirit.

I could go on and on, there are dozens of scriptures that prove Calvinism error, and there is not one single verse in all of scripture that shows God giving the Holy Spirit to an unwilling person.

 

[Tom Butler]

Winman, my brother,

I congratulate you. Even though we see things differently, you have fairly represented my views, which I have found is a rare thing among non-Calvinists.

I hope our discussion has been profitable to those who have tuned in to this thread. I think we have pretty much run out the string on this one. Thanks for a spirited but civil debate.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...I wouldn't shy away from the "difficult" verses by utterly changing what they say.

Wed nite bible study at the SBC the preacher was expositing the passage in Mt 22 about the wedding and the guests:

Mt 22:1 –Mt 22:3 KJV
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come....

It was very good up until the last verse:

Mt 22:14 KJV
For many are called, but few are chosen.

He said called can be translated as "invited", which..ok, but then when he finished the verse he said, "but few are chosen, few accept the invitation."

It simply struck me as avoiding the meaning of the text~I expected better. This isn't the first time I've noted this behavior. I'm (or anyone else) is not going to agree with every expositional point, but what happens is when he gets to these points there is no exposition, he just glosses over and moves on. And during this parable teaching time the primary point ~~the "moral of the story" is contained at the end of the parable, just where he tends to smooth over the rough spots.

If he would have exposited that section as well as he did the rest of the passage, and even if I didn't agree with it, at least I had a valid POV presented, and I can easily live with that.

I just expected different better...

Yeah, he messed up. May the Lord forgive him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman said;

But Calvinism teaches that a man is regenerated, made spiritually alive without repenting and without believing the gospel.

This is not at all correct.Why do you say such a thing? This is bearing false witness. If you want to disagree that is one thing.But make sure you know what you are opposing.

here is from the 1689 baptist confession of faith;

Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation
1._____ Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. ( Titus 3:2-5 )
2._____ Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation.
( Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32 )

3._____ This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.
( Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128 )

4._____ As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly.
( Luke 19:8; 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 )

5._____ Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary.
( Romans 6:23; Isaiah 1:16-18 Isaiah 55:7 )

Then you said this;

I believe the unregenerate man can be convicted and taught, he can understand the gospel.

The scripture says otherwise
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

he does not have the power or ability to know them.he cannot.

next you said this;

You believe a man receives the Spirit so that he can be enabled to hear and believe the gospel. You will not find one verse in all of scripture to support this, I can show you many other verses besides what I have already shown that shows the unregenerate man can hear and believe the gospel, and afterwards receives the Spirit.

#4 This is absolute assumption on your part that it is unilateral. God does not force or impose himself on anyone. He will give his Spirit to those willing to receive it. This is shown in John.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

It is those that willingly receive Jesus and believe on his name that God gives the power (Holy Spirit) to "become" the sons of God

Winman...Jn 1:12 good verse....but continue in context to verse 13 for the explanation-
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, it clearly says not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man....

 

[Tom Butler]

Iconoclast, thanks for your welcome addition to this discussion.

 

[Rippon]

Iconoclast, thanks for your welcome addition to this discussion.

I second that. Welcome aboard the grand ship BB!

 

[Winman]

Winman said;


This is not at all correct.Why do you say such a thing? This is bearing false witness. If you want to disagree that is one thing.But make sure you know what you are opposing.

here is from the 1689 baptist confession of faith;

Then you said this;
The scripture says otherwise
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

he does not have the power or ability to know them.he cannot.

next you said this;


Winman...Jn 1:12 good verse....but continue in context to verse 13 for the explanation-
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, it clearly says not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man....

Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate man cannot repent. It is only after he has been born again, regenerated, made spiritually alive that he even has the ability to repent.

But that is a problem, you have a person being born again, regenerated without repentance. That is absolutely unscriptural and I will show you.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The first thing we see is that these unregenerate men heard God's word and were convicted (they were pricked in their heart).

Next we see Peter telling them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin.

And lastly, Peter tells them if they repent, it is then that they will receive the Holy Spirit, not before.

This is not what you teach, you teach that a person first receives the Spirit (regeneration) and afterwards repents and believes.

And a person would need to ask, why does someone who is already regenerated, born again, spiritually alive need to do anything at all? They already have everlasting life.

As for 1 Corinthians 2:14, this has been addressed many times. This verse has been taken out of context. Paul is teaching that the Greeks especially look for natural explanations, just as evolutionists do today. It is not that they cannot understand, they actually do understand it, but it is foolishness to them, just as evolutionists think the creation account is foolish. But evolutionists understand what we believe quite clearly, if you don't believe it, ask one. Notice that first it says, "receiveth not". That is, they will not accept this explanation.

And you are absolutely twisting John 1:11-13.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

First, Jesus came to save even those who refused to accept him, so there goes Limited Atonement right there.

Verse 12 says to those "who received him" to "them" gave he power to "become" the sons of God. You have to do a whole lot of twisting scripture to misunderstand that. To those who gladly received Jesus and believed on him, "to them" gave he power (the Holy Spirit) to become the sons of God.

Verse 13 is just explaining this power given to them. It came from God, it did not originate through man's will or power.

You turn it around opposite of what it says. According to Calvinism, verse 11 should read something like;

"He came not unto those that were not his"

And you would have to place verse 13 in front of 12 to read;

"Those born of God, not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the flesh, but of God, to them he gave the power to become the sons of God, and they received him and believed on his name."

But that is not what these verses say. It doesn't even make sense in that order, because you have someone who is already born of God receiving the power to become the sons of God.

And your idea of regeneration doesn't make sense either, you have a person who has already received the Spirit repenting and believing so they can receive the Spirit.

Besides being utterly unscriptural, it is absolutely illogical as well.

 

[kyredneck]

.....And lastly, Peter tells them if they repent, it is then that they will receive the Holy Spirit, not before..........

You are consistent/persistent in your error of confusing the birth of the Spirit with the Baptism of the Spirit. The former is something that has always been. The latter was a clothing with power from on high that came on the day of Pentecost.

 

[uhdum]

Hello all, I am new around here (posted a little bit years ago) and have enjoyed the discussions on this thread.

Iconoclast, something you said made me think...

This is not at all correct.Why do you say such a thing? This is bearing false witness. If you want to disagree that is one thing.But make sure you know what you are opposing.

You said this when Winman said that Calvinists believe that regeneration comes first. I am seeking to understand the positions of Calvinists on this subject. Do some Calvinists believe this, and others do not? I ask that, because upon looking at some old Baptist confessions, I found the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession, which states:

We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again (Jn. 3:3, 6-7; 1 Cor. 1:14, Rev. 8:7-9; 21:27); that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind (2 Cor. 5:17; Ez. 36:26; Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28-29; 5:5; 1 Jn. 4:7); that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth (Jn. 3:8; 1:13; Jam. 1:16-18; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 2:13), so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 1 Jn. 5:1; Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:9-11); and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life (Eph. 5:9; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 5:16-23; Eph. 3:14-21; Matt. 3:8-10; 7:20; 1 Jn. 5:4, 18).

This particular confession seems to teach regeneration before faith. Also, in his book "The Holiness of God," R.C. Sproul says,"Christ made it clear that dead people cannot choose anything, that the flesh counts for nothing, and that we must be born of the Spirit before we can even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it."

Piper, OTOH, seems to state that regeneration and belief happen simultaneously. So, is this an issue that divides Calvinists? I am seeking to understand as clearly as I can.


God bless you, brother!

Adam

 

[Tom Butler]

uhdum,welcome back.

The view that regeneration precedes faith is the majority view among Calvinists, although I do believe that are a few who reverse the order.

I know of no free-willer who holds that regeneration precedes faith. In fact, they think it's heresy.

 

[Allan]

I know of no free-willer who holds that regeneration precedes faith. In fact, they think it's heresy.

Tom, your giving blanket statements again. You know or at least should know by now, that not all or even the majory 'think it's heresy' to believe such. Remember, just because there are quite a few on this board who view it as such does not mean that equates to the rest of us


I will say that most do believe your view on this is an untrue teaching (yes, and some view it as a heresy), we also note it is just the same with our reformed brethren who state our view in this is untrue - and then of course there are the others of the reformed view who believe the our view is heresy

 

[Tom Butler]

Allan, you're right. There are many non-Cals who do not view Calvinism as heresy--just in error. Same for many Calvinists regarding non-Cals.

I should have qualified my comment.

 

[Rippon]

Allan, you're right. There are many non-Cals who do not view Calvinism as heresy--just in error. Same for many Calvinists regarding non-Cals.

I should have qualified my comment.

Tom, in your post numbered 36 you had said that free-willers regard those who think regeneration precedes faith are heretics.

You weren't saying that you thought most non-Cals regard Calvinists as heretics. So you originally qualified your remark.

 

[jbh28]

Something just stuck me in your post, you said the call is not always effective.

What do you mean effective? Is God not able to effectually call everyone?

I was reading through this thread and wanted to make a few comments. Here, the answer is yes, God is ABLE to effectually call everyone. To say otherwise would be an attack on the sovereignty of God.

See, that's the problem when you argue that unregenerate man does not have the ability to choose God, then you make all failure God's fault. If a person is not saved it must be God's fault.

The biggest problem is that the unregenerate man is unwilling to come to Christ. This is because of his nature.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus says here the clearly that no one can come to Christ unless he is drawn(which means to attack to cause to come...it ALWAYS means there is an action) by the father. God will draw both Jews and Gentiles according to John 12, but not everyone will be drawn to Christ. Many will reject Him. John 6 says that a person must be drawn before he can come, which means that before he is drawn, he cannot come.

And I know this is off track, but if you believe in unconditional election then sin is meaningless. You are chosen for no reason whatsoever, not because you are either good or bad.

No, you have what unconditional means a little confused. Unconditional means that God didn't choose you or me because of something good in us. It doesn't mean that he chose us for no reason at all. We are not told the reason for God's election. I would hope that no one would think they are chosen because they are good, because that would mean they earned their salvation.

If you go to heaven did Jesus have anything to do with it? No, because you were chosen unconditionally.

Not sure if you meant what you said here, but yes, we go to heaven because Jesus(God) had everything to do with it. He chose us unconditionally, in that we didn't do anything to merit His choosing.

If you go to hell did sin have anything to do with it? No, because you were passed by unconditionally.

No, you go to hell because of your sin. That is the purpose of salvation is because we are sinners. Those that go to hell go there to pay for their sins.

I really do not see how any thinking person can accept this doctrine, it makes all of scripture non-sensical. Unconditional means unconditional.

Unconditional is only in regards to our actions. I didn't do anything to merit God's election. That is the only thing unconditional applies to.

Why did God tell the non-elect to turn from sin? What difference does it make if they were never chosen? It would actually make more sense to tell the non-elect to have as much fun and pleasure as they can while they can.

Man is responsible to repent. God has called all men everywhere to repent. Those that go to hell do so because they choose to reject God.

The problem is, the lays all responsibility upon God. It presents several other problems as well. If can can indeed effectually call every person, but chooses not to effectually call some, then God is partial. But the scriptures are very clear that God is never partial to one man over another.

God is the one that saves. We don't do anything to earn our salvation.

Let me ask a few questions for thought.

1. Is God able to effectually call every person?

Answer 1: No, then God is not sovereign. He cannot do some things He wants to do. He wants to effectually call everyone but is unable.​

Answer 2: Yes, God chooses to not effectually call everyone.​

Scriptures say that God will judge with no respect of persons (Romans 2:11). He will judge all by their deeds regardless if they are Jew or Gentile.

This doesn't mean that their is no election. I could say that all go to heaven because God will no show respect of persons. Of course we know that isn't true and I have to take it out of context to say such a thing. Romans 2 is about the judging of God and no respect of persons between the Jew and Gentile.

No, unconditional means unconditional. It means God elects to save some men for no reason whatsoever, and therefore also chooses to pass by the rest for no reason and causes them to perish. [/quote]
No, it teaches that God elects to save some men for nothing in that man, not no reason whatsoever.

God doesn't choose you because you trusted in Christ, he chooses you for no reason and then imposes faith in Christ upon you. It must be forced and imposed, because according to your doctrine the unregenerate man will never willingly come to Christ. So God is actually forcing faith in Christ upon the unregenerate man against his will.

No, John 6 says man must be drawn before he comes. The man comes once he is drawn.
Ephesians 2 says we are dead(spiritually) but Christ makes us alive.

And if a man goes to hell, it is has nothing to so with sin. The reason the man goes to hell is because God chose to pass him by. God could easily regenerate this man against his will just as he did the elect. Remember, it is unconditional, there is no reason whatsoever for choosing one man to be saved and choosing another to be lost.

If you cannot see how absolutely absurd this doctrine is, I can't help you. And if you cannot see how it makes God 100% responsible for a man going to hell, then I can't help you there either.

The problem is that you don't have the correct understanding of the purpose of election. Men by nature are on their way to hell because they are sinners. We are born that way. We sin because that is what we want to do. We by nature do not seek after God. The things of God are foolish to us. We are spiritually dead in our sins and trespasses. The election of God is an act of grace. We don't deserve it. We do nothing to earn it. God elects some to salvation by the pleasure of His will(not for no reason at all). If God didn't elect anyone and everyone went to hell, God would be perfectly just and right in doing that. We ALL deserve Hell and do not deserve heaven nor the chance to go to heaven.

If God only elected one person, it would be the greatest act of love.